I would like to see the IRFU come out and say as a thanks to the Welsh and Scots for their support they will be putting more funds into the 4 provinces to allow them to sign top caliber foreign players to ensure 4 places in the Euro Cup. Also they would support the 2 SA teams getting in leaving the Celtic Cousins to scrap out for the last place.

artaneboy wrote:Ciaran, most people here have expressed their frustration or/ and anger at the process, as much or more than the actual decision. It was obviously flawed at best and ‘stacked’ if you were to be less charitable. Most of us also have a view (subjective but sincere) that Ireland winning the bid would have been good for the sport as a whole- as well as for the country and the game here.

I agree with that. I believe we would have put on the best world cup. However, I don't think it's irrational or insane that someone else might have a different opinion.

artaneboy wrote:So we did believe, naively it transpires, that we could therefore count on the support of our Celtic League partners.

This is where I diverge. They shouldn't have voted for us because they were geographically beside us, they should have voted for us because we had the best bid. I also respect their right to have a different opinion

I agree on their right to have a different opinion- and even their duty to vote for the best bid- but I don't think that's what they did. They went not for the long-term benefits, but for in Scotland's case medium term promises (after 2023 remember) and in Wales' case a risible reason of 'backing their man'. We on the other hand, based on our supposed relationship in the Pro 14, position with respect to the European competitions, etc and all that, had a reasonable expectation to expect some level of collegiality among close neighbors and partners- and there was enough reason to believe that the benefits of a RWC here would help them financially and structurally too.

artaneboy wrote:the reasons, timing and communication were respectively pathetic, inadequate and contemptuous. That’s the difference between your SANZAR example. It’s not treachery (as it definitely was with the ERC)- it’s insulting, never mind for now being foolishly shortsighted.

In what way? Scotland happen to have said from the outset that they would vote for the biggest financial package, but they weren't required to. Why should Wales have made some form of formal, public communication as to how they would vote? Why shouldn't they have waited until the last week to make a decision? I mean, they met our delegation in the last few days before making a final decision, so where is the subterfuge evidence? What exactly was contemptuous?

The pathetic and inadequate, I've dealt with. The contempt both from- the Scots that pinning of their vote to the money; given the scale of the countries bidding, they must have known at that stage that this was effectively the two fingers to Ireland. Is that a decision in the best interests of the game? In addition the reported refusal to meet with the IRFU (I repeat- their Pro 14 partner and close neighbour...) on the issue before the vote to discuss it was definitely contemptuous. Are they pretending they went into purdah after the publication of the technical report and didn't take an informal phone call from LaPorte? C'mon!.

artaneboy wrote:I remember the sinking of the ERC and now this wound. We would need to be stupid not to learn from those experiences. ...I suggest we will advocate a vote based on our self interest. We certainly won’t care on the views of the Welsh, Scots or Italian unions. But that’s reasonable given what’s happened. It’s the least we or they can expect. Neither will we care “what’s best for rugby” because neither will anyone else- and our eschewing self interest won’t make a bit of difference.

That's pretty depressing. What you're basically saying is that we can never bid for the world cup on the basis on a great bid. Just backhanders and bribes. Bring in Bertie to lead our next bid team, eh? In the next round, if Argentina & USA are the bidders, and the Argie bid is incredible & the US bid is terrible, vote US regardless because 'favours'. If there are bids in the future where one offers us something in our own self interest, but another bid is far superior, vote for the former regardless.

France winning 2023 gets Scotland an extra 2 million (estimated on OTB), which makes them 'penny pinching', 'pathetic' and 'contemptuous'. But in the future, we should copy that behaviour, apparently.

Yeah- €2 million after 2023 is fairly meager return as set against the opportunity cost on optimising the growth of their game by direct taking advantage of Ireland's RWC and the indirect potential if they were so minded. But that's the decision they made- and as has been noted, let's not be surprised if Scotland get a nice juicy warm-up game in Murrayfield against France in the run-up to the 2023 RWC. And yes again; there's no point in Ireland taking moral positions when few else are.

CiaranIrl wrote:Look - I'm arguing against pretty much everyone here, so I'll probably just give up. I just personally believe that us arguing that Wales / Scotland / Italy should have voted for us just because we're in a league together is a bit sad. That just proves that the Saffers were right. It is just a big old boys club. I think they (and everyone) should have voted for us because it was the best world cup bid for a whole host of reasons.

I agree with you about the reaction being OTT and that they weren't duty bound to vote for us. When I saw the result I wasn't surprised and didn't automatically assume we'd been stabbed in the back, I never really considered that it would be like the eurovision (as someone brilliantly pointed out a few pages ago) and that people would automatically vote for their oldest "friends".

However, I think Browne's reaction to that is quite telling and I'm going to assume that there are good reasons why he was so disappointed and angry with them. Talk of revenge etc is nonsense but I'd be willing to bet that he wasn't just being petty and a sore loser and that would lead me to think that they acted in a shitty way, whether that's because of the reasons they gave or because of an expected quid pro quo or what, I don't have a clue, but I'm willing to back him.

Looking at the reasons themselves, I don't like either of them. The Welsh didn't back SA because they had the strongest bid, they just backed their man. If Davies wasn't involved I'd have no problem whatsoever with them voting for SA, but it seems like they did it for the wrong reason. And if they just supported their man well then there's no good reason why they couldn't have supported us. That doesn't make them wrong as such, but it does leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

Scotland's decision is a bit more understandable IMO but also just a bit short sighted and you'd imagine our relationship has benefited them financially over the years. How much money were World Cup warm up games worth to them for example? I may have this totally wrong but I feel like we're generally the good guys when it comes to developing the game e.g. not kicking the Italians out of the Pro12. That being the case, or at least my view of things, I do think we need to be more selfish in future in order for us to not be screwed over again. So if, for example, Connacht and Ulster both improved and we really dominated the Pro14 for a while and decided that not every country should be guaranteed a team in the Champions Cup and that Irish rugby could benefit then we should absolutely go for it. I'm not up in arms about their decisions and don't think we should be looking for ways to get them back, but we should definitely focus on what's best for us as opposed to rugby as a whole IMO.

CiaranIrl wrote:Look - I'm arguing against pretty much everyone here, so I'll probably just give up. I just personally believe that us arguing that Wales / Scotland / Italy should have voted for us just because we're in a league together is a bit sad. That just proves that the Saffers were right. It is just a big old boys club. I think they (and everyone) should have voted for us because it was the best world cup bid for a whole host of reasons.

I agree with you about the reaction being OTT and that they weren't duty bound to vote for us. When I saw the result I wasn't surprised and didn't automatically assume we'd been stabbed in the back, I never really considered that it would be like the eurovision (as someone brilliantly pointed out a few pages ago) and that people would automatically vote for their oldest "friends".

However, I think Browne's reaction to that is quite telling and I'm going to assume that there are good reasons why he was so disappointed and angry with them. Talk of revenge etc is nonsense but I'd be willing to bet that he wasn't just being petty and a sore loser and that would lead me to think that they acted in a shitty way, whether that's because of the reasons they gave or because of an expected quid pro quo or what, I don't have a clue, but I'm willing to back him.

Looking at the reasons themselves, I don't like either of them. The Welsh didn't back SA because they had the strongest bid, they just backed their man. If Davies wasn't involved I'd have no problem whatsoever with them voting for SA, but it seems like they did it for the wrong reason. And if they just supported their man well then there's no good reason why they couldn't have supported us. That doesn't make them wrong as such, but it does leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

Scotland's decision is a bit more understandable IMO but also just a bit short sighted and you'd imagine our relationship has benefited them financially over the years. How much money were World Cup warm up games worth to them for example? I may have this totally wrong but I feel like we're generally the good guys when it comes to developing the game e.g. not kicking the Italians out of the Pro12. That being the case, or at least my view of things, I do think we need to be more selfish in future in order for us to not be screwed over again. So if, for example, Connacht and Ulster both improved and we really dominated the Pro14 for a while and decided that not every country should be guaranteed a team in the Champions Cup and that Irish rugby could benefit then we should absolutely go for it. I'm not up in arms about their decisions and don't think we should be looking for ways to get them back, but we should definitely focus on what's best for us as opposed to rugby as a whole IMO.

That's a very fair and balanced way of looking at it. I couldn't argue with that way of putting it really.

“As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.”

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:. So if, for example, Connacht and Ulster both improved and we really dominated the Pro14 for a while and decided that not every country should be guaranteed a team in the Champions Cup and that Irish rugby could benefit then we should absolutely go for it..

Dominating the Pro14 is all well and good but unfortunately its cutting off our nose to spite our face because if Ireland is dominant for a period (and arguably we have been even to some extent if not on the trophy list) the Welsh and Scots lose out financially by fewer teams participating in the ECC. Whatever way you cut it that is why Scotland voted for France - they needed the money. Without money for Wales and Scotland the Pro14 will also crumble.

I think you've both missed my point somewhat. It was purely a hypothetical example to show that if we think something will benefit us but be detrimental to Scotland and Wales then we shouldn't worry about adopting a holistic approach. It doesn't matter what that is, could be to do with European qualification, could be voting for promotion and relegation in the 6N, could be banning the presence of bagpipes in stadiums. Doesn't matter, the point was that we should take a more selfish approach in future because we know that they don't give a toss about us.

Lar wrote:Dominating the Pro14 is all well and good but unfortunately its cutting off our nose to spite our face because if Ireland is dominant for a period (and arguably we have been even to some extent if not on the trophy list) the Welsh and Scots lose out financially by fewer teams participating in the ECC. Whatever way you cut it that is why Scotland voted for France - they needed the money. Without money for Wales and Scotland the Pro14 will also crumble.

As the union that has invested most in the Pro14(NIQ signings, retention of domestic talent, Pro Refs etc) it's only natural we dominate it. The Scots only started inveting in academies about 10 years ago. The SRu (and many of the amatuer clubs) saw it as a waste of money and it showed in their signings. I think thats changed for them for some time (best evidenced by the coaches they signed).

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:I think you've both missed my point somewhat. It was purely a hypothetical example to show that if we think something will benefit us but be detrimental to Scotland and Wales then we shouldn't worry about adopting a holistic approach. It doesn't matter what that is, could be to do with European qualification, could be voting for promotion and relegation in the 6N, could be banning the presence of bagpipes in stadiums. Doesn't matter, the point was that we should take a more selfish approach in future because we know that they don't give a toss about us.

Accept all that hypothetically, and in practice it may occur from time to time, but in the real world we need the Scots and the Welsh. Admittedly they need us too and that didn't stop them voting fro someone else in the latest round of RWC votes.

CiaranIrl wrote:Just so I'm clear, in the next world cup bid that comes around where we have a vote, is there anyone at all out there that would advocate voting for what we consider being the best bid - on the basis of 'whats the best thing for rugby'? If NZ or Australia had voted for us, would it be right to consider them traitors because they didn't vote for their fellow sanzar mates in SA?

Is it just a given that the only basis for voting in favour of a nation's bid is something along the lines of the following:

1. Who can we screw over that passed us over before?2. Who is nearest to us geographically?3. Who are in the same old boys club as us?4. Who can cut a deal for us that benefits us somehow?

I'm as disappointed as the next guy, but I think the bitterness is excessive. Wales and Scotland had valid reasons to vote as they did. It would be a sorry state of affairs if the only way it could work was "vote for your mates, screw everything else.

That would be for the SA's to decide. They did stand by SA anyway so it shows they have some loyalty.

The Welsh and Scottish have every right to vote for who they wanted. It's a free world (or should be) after all so they can make their own decisions.

There are consequences for actions though. What's happened now is they've broken a relationship so there'll come a time when they need Ireland's support and they might not get it.

The IRFU don't have to go out of their way to punish them but they've now been liberated from feeling the need to support them.

CiaranIrl wrote:Just so I'm clear, in the next world cup bid that comes around where we have a vote, is there anyone at all out there that would advocate voting for what we consider being the best bid - on the basis of 'whats the best thing for rugby'? If NZ or Australia had voted for us, would it be right to consider them traitors because they didn't vote for their fellow sanzar mates in SA?

Is it just a given that the only basis for voting in favour of a nation's bid is something along the lines of the following:

1. Who can we screw over that passed us over before?2. Who is nearest to us geographically?3. Who are in the same old boys club as us?4. Who can cut a deal for us that benefits us somehow?

I'm as disappointed as the next guy, but I think the bitterness is excessive. Wales and Scotland had valid reasons to vote as they did. It would be a sorry state of affairs if the only way it could work was "vote for your mates, screw everything else.

That would be for the SA's to decide. They did stand by SA anyway so it shows they have some loyalty.

The Welsh and Scottish have every right to vote for who they wanted. It's a free world (or should be) after all so they can make their own decisions.

There are consequences for actions though. What's happened now is they've broken a relationship so there'll come a time when they need Ireland's support and they might not get it.

The IRFU don't have to go out of their way to punish them but they've now been liberated from feeling the need to support them.

The IRFU almost definitely won't support them, unless it's beneficial to the IRFU.

Laporte's announcement today of the National shirt sponsorship deal with Altrad closes the circle as to how Altrad are to be recompensed for their various elements of rugby / financial support to countries who subsequently supported the French bid.

It demonstrates perfectly how Ireland could have "leveraged" their bid if they have planned it from a business perspective, rather than just like 'an old boy's club'.

You don't have to like Laporte, but it's hard not to admire how he goes about getting what he wants and needs in French rugby.

Ruckedtobits wrote:Laporte's announcement today of the National shirt sponsorship deal with Altrad closes the circle as to how Altrad are to be recompensed for their various elements of rugby / financial support to countries who subsequently supported the French bid.

It demonstrates perfectly how Ireland could have "leveraged" their bid if they have planned it from a business perspective, rather than just like 'an old boy's club'.

You don't have to like Laporte, but it's hard not to admire how he goes about getting what he wants and needs in French rugby.

Like his shambolic coaching appointments?

"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ruckedtobits wrote:Laporte's announcement today of the National shirt sponsorship deal with Altrad closes the circle as to how Altrad are to be recompensed for their various elements of rugby / financial support to countries who subsequently supported the French bid.

It demonstrates perfectly how Ireland could have "leveraged" their bid if they have planned it from a business perspective, rather than just like 'an old boy's club'.

You don't have to like Laporte, but it's hard not to admire how he goes about getting what he wants and needs in French rugby.

from RTE today

Police raided the headquarters of the French Rugby Federation (FFR) as part of an investigation into alleged conflict of interest involving the federation's president Bernard Laporte, a source close to the matter said.

The police search was first reported by the L'Equipe newspaper. The source confirmed the operation and said Laporte's home had also been searched.

Laporte, a former France coach and sports minister, denies allegations he put pressure on the rugby federation's appeals board to reduce sanctions against Top 14 side Montpellier.

Montpellier are owned by Syrian-born scaffolding billionaire Mohad Altrad, with whom Laporte's company BL Communication had a business relationship.

Calls to the rugby federation's spokeswoman went unanswered, and attempts by Reuters to contact an FFR official who worked with Laporte on promoting a bid for the 2023 Rugby World Cup were also unsuccessful.

Altrad's eponymous business was a backer for that bid, which succeeded, and this month secured sponsorship rights for the French national rugby team's shirt in a five-year 35 million euro deal.